Back in September 2018 I asked this question, which lead to a twitter discussion, which lead to me losing my job.
The Q wasn't about Bunce really but about whether, when you have a policy that is about empowering women, you change the definition to suit a man?
People who responded, smart people, usually robust economists said things like this.
I was surprised...but I could why they might fence sit, or SEK to be (apparently) inclusive, since the #manels question is fairly minor.
But when it really matters people might say no?..no?
Like when someone who has lived all their life as a man and has recently "become" a woman asks for a seat on a forum where women have a chance to talk to medics about how women are treated in pregnancy and childbirth.
On single sex spaces they say the law is clear that service providers are able to restrict access to spaces on the basis of biological sex where there is clear justification.